Remington 700 as a safari rifle anyone?

[roklok]

Is there any literature out there on how the CRF setup came into prevelance? Its what basically every standard issue bolt action rifle fielded used (Springfield, mauser, enfield, arisaka, etc) so there are clear advantages to it for a combat rifle. As far as I know, there was never a widespread standard issue bolt action infantry rifle that was push feed.

I agree that with an auto, theres zero advantage to CRF since the action is automatic.

The Mosin -Nagant, one of the most rugged and reliable, if not refined, military bolt action rifles ever fielded is a push feed. One of the most mass produced military bolt action rifles in history, with over 37 million in various variants produced. The Russians have a reputation for building things that work and are bombproof. Yes, they do have an interrupter in the feed mechanism to prevent rimlock, but the bolt is 100% push feed. Enclosed bolt head, extractor snaps over when bolt is locked.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

So let me get this straight..

Crfs need work to be 100% reliable
Push feeds need work to be reliable....

Seems like your nullifying your argument. Also single round feeding a crf is alot harder

But that said. I would argue both being well made and maintained
Will perform well.

CRF in many calibers needs some work to get it feed 100% the military rifles in there original calibers seem to need no work.
Push feeds are simpler and easier to make reliable, but leaves you more vulnerable to human error.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

Crf is a design from 1890s.
Techs come along way buddy.

2 whats this bs accuracy first reliability second.

3 youve nevre seen semi autos catastrophically jam??

Not liking remingtons fine.

Push feeds not the reason because your argument isnt based in reality or real world applications.

What reality and real world application did I miss. Not being smart but curious.
Of course I’ve seen auto loaders jam, but what does it have to do with bolt actions.

 

[MS 9x56]

I have a Remington 700 BDL in 30-06 that I can't bring myself to shoot. Mainly because it's never been shot. And it'a 1974!View attachment 775837

A rifle that is not shot just becomes a bauble. Rifles are built to hunt with. If they are not used for the reason they were built they are nothing more than a possession, or bauble. Just one old hunters opinion.

 

[Rule 303]

Is there any literature out there on how the CRF setup came into prevelance? Its what basically every standard issue bolt action rifle fielded used (Springfield, mauser, enfield, arisaka, etc) so there are clear advantages to it for a combat rifle. As far as I know, there was never a widespread standard issue bolt action infantry rifle that was push feed.

I agree that with an auto, theres zero advantage to CRF since the action is automatic.

The SMLE is a push feed. To be control round feed the extractor has to engage the rim before the case is clear of the feed rails. With the SMLE this does not happen until the case has just cleared the rails, same with Sako's claimed CRF. Yes, very nit-picky because of the closeness.

Ontario Hunter, last post was good but the 700 bolt has far less slop than most other commercial rifles out of the box. My Ruger's are worse and every M98 I have tried. Work a rifle and you can make anything better. Yes the safety was a disgrace and extractor prior to the late 80's when quality control appears to have gone out the door were ok. Would have been good if they made the gripping part of the extractor a bit larger.

 

[Rule 303]

CRF in many calibers needs some work to get it feed 100% the military rifles in there original calibers seem to need no work.
Push feeds are simpler and easier to make reliable, but leaves you more vulnerable to human error.

How re human error? Not being smart just not sure of exactly what you are saying. I have seen M98 suffer all the things a CRF is not supposed to do or be capable of.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

How re human error? Not being smart just not sure of exactly what you are saying. I have seen M98 suffer all the things a CRF is not supposed to do or be capable of.

If the bolt goes partially forward then rearward again it can strip another round from the magazine then double feed. Or just leave the round loose to get misaligned.
Due to the complexity of the Mauser everything must be just right to be reliable, but once it is it’s the best system in my opinion.
The push feed is just so simple, it’s easier, and cheaper to make work properly.
I don’t mind a push feed, but don’t like Remington’s. My old PF Winchesters were darn good rifles.

 

[DaddyFlip]

All this bickering debate is making me want to buy another Krag rifle; maybe a carbine this time. Wish I had never sold my Krag. Push feed.

 

[farmer_john]

What reality and real world application did I miss. Not being smart but curious.
Of course I’ve seen auto loaders jam, but what does it have to do with bolt actions.

Your presenting personal opinion as fact. its ok to not like push feeds or CRF or may I speak heresy guns at all.
But dont try to present your oppinion as fact with straw man arguments. based on factually weak or not real historical examples. and war is a much better test of a rifles capabilities than any 10 day hunt in the bush will ever be.


The point of CRF is to eliminate some chances of failure due to the operator short stoking the bolt. Also it’s a safety feature that will not allow a cartridge to be in the chamber without the bolt shut.


Comparing auto loading rifles to bolt actions adds nothing to the argument for push peed rifles as the human error has been eliminated, at least as far as operating the bolt.

bolt operation is the same goes out pushes ammo from magazine. jams and malfunctions happen


Also sniper rifles are chosen and built for accuracy first and reliability second.

this is mostly where my brain melted...... because its so out of touch with reality. reliability is primary importance. you dont want your super $$$$$ investment in specialized troops getting sent to the almighty because there weapon working is secondary to accuracy

The DG rifle has more in common with the bolt action battle rifle of the Great War than the sniper rifles of today’s combat.
There are a number of reasons why I don’t like the Remington 700, being push feed is only one.

yes and no. having a claw extractor and being a mauser style action yes. but there alot less sloppy than a k98 from the 30s and many recievers they have had improvements and modifications in many ways. over last hundred plus years.



The thing is they both work great. cheaper to make or not. id take a modern mod 70 reciever thats been blueprinted or a rem 700 with all other parts being the same and id happily go clap fools with them. while getting nibbled on by rats.


weapons malfunctions 98% of the time regardless of semi auto or bolt are user error. be it poor maintanence or use.

short stroking
ejection problems due to not cleaning or replacing springs every 100 years
ect
generally isnt the rifles issue or its designed. the problem is alot of people cant look critically at their own actions they blame the gun....

 

[Wyatt Smith]

Your presenting personal opinion as fact. its ok to not like push feeds or CRF or may I speak heresy guns at all.
But dont try to present your oppinion as fact with straw man arguments. based on factually weak or not real historical examples. and war is a much better test of a rifles capabilities than any 10 day hunt in the bush will ever be.


The point of CRF is to eliminate some chances of failure due to the operator short stoking the bolt. Also it’s a safety feature that will not allow a cartridge to be in the chamber without the bolt shut.


Comparing auto loading rifles to bolt actions adds nothing to the argument for push peed rifles as the human error has been eliminated, at least as far as operating the bolt.

bolt operation is the same goes out pushes ammo from magazine. jams and malfunctions happen


Also sniper rifles are chosen and built for accuracy first and reliability second.

this is mostly where my brain melted...... because its so out of touch with reality. reliability is primary importance. you dont want your super $$$$$ investment in specialized troops getting sent to the almighty because there weapon working is secondary to accuracy

The DG rifle has more in common with the bolt action battle rifle of the Great War than the sniper rifles of today’s combat.
There are a number of reasons why I don’t like the Remington 700, being push feed is only one.

yes and no. having a claw extractor and being a mauser style action yes. but there alot less sloppy than a k98 from the 30s and many recievers they have had improvements and modifications in many ways. over last hundred plus years.



The thing is they both work great. cheaper to make or not. id take a modern mod 70 reciever thats been blueprinted or a rem 700 with all other parts being the same and id happily go clap fools with them. while getting nibbled on by rats.


weapons malfunctions 98% of the time regardless of semi auto or bolt are user error. be it poor maintanence or use.

short stroking
ejection problems due to not cleaning or replacing springs every 100 years
ect
generally isnt the rifles issue or its designed. the problem is alot of people cant look critically at their own actions they blame the gun....

I think we are more on the same page than you think, and I had no intention of melting your brain.
Short stoking was the not the correct wording perhaps, but CRF was used to help prevent human errors in the operation of the bolt. What other purpose does it have. It also helps prevent a loaded round getting stuck in chamber and trying to push another on top of it.
On a semi auto, the human does not work the bolt, (except the initial loading) so what advantage is it to have a more complicated system that minimizes human errors. We are only talking about the bolt being operated here.
To say for sniper rifles that accuracy comes before reliability was probably a stretch, but the marines took an accurate rifle and made it reliable (and more accurate) with all the extensive modifications with the 700. Of course no one wants to take an unreliable rifle to the field, especially in combat, just because it is accurate. If you can’t fire you can’t hit your target.
I said that the rifles used for DG have more in common with the rifles used in the Great War. I meant that the conditions the rifle will encounter are more similar. A GI in a foxhole will need 100% reliability, under stress, and in muddy/dusty conditions, more so than the accuracy required from a sniper rifle.
You are correct that both systems have advantages and disadvantages. For long range fire where speed is not critical. The ability to top load and snap over the rim is advantageous. Also the spring loaded ejectors will politely drop the brass in neat pile no matter how hard the bolt is worked. In muddy dirty conditions where the bolt is worked hard and only fed from the magazine, the fixed blade ejector hold the advantage.
The push feed is simpler and cheaper, the CRF is more complex and trickery to make work. One must do his own research and decide for himself.
As to me not liking Remingtons. My Brother in laws bolt handle fell off. The extractors are known to be weak. I prefer bolt mounted safeties, the ejection and loading port is smaller, I prefer the recoil lug to be part of the action, I prefer flat bottomed actions, and I don’t care for cassette triggers. Being a push feed is honestly on the bottom of the list of things I dislike. All of those are personal preferences
The post 64 model 70 push feed has about everything I like in a rifle except for CRF and I consider them fine rifles.
I was in a hurry earlier and didn’t word things correctly. I hope you don’t think I was trying to be abrasive or rude.

 

[Rule 303]

If the bolt goes partially forward then rearward again it can strip another round from the magazine then double feed. Or just leave the round loose to get misaligned.
Due to the complexity of the Mauser everything must be just right to be reliable, but once it is it’s the best system in my opinion.
The push feed is just so simple, it’s easier, and cheaper to make work properly.
I don’t mind a push feed, but don’t like Remington’s. My old PF Winchesters were darn good rifles.

I didn't know if you were talking about operator error, tradesman/manufacture error or both. Should have been more clear myself.

 

[Rule 303]

One point about sniper rifles I would like to point out. They require extensive or very good and regular maintenance to be reliable. Sniper rifles have very fine tolerances so to aid accuracy. Fine tolerances are the enemy of reliability in the elements as they jam up easily. Now I doubt, but do not know for sure, that any snipper would treat their rifle the same way infantry when moving through, dust, mud, slurry etc.

 

[farmer_john]

I think we are more on the same page than you think, and I had no intention of melting your brain.
Short stoking was the not the correct wording perhaps, but CRF was used to help prevent human errors in the operation of the bolt. What other purpose does it have. It also helps prevent a loaded round getting stuck in chamber and trying to push another on top of it.
On a semi auto, the human does not work the bolt, (except the initial loading) so what advantage is it to have a more complicated system that minimizes human errors. We are only talking about the bolt being operated here.
To say for sniper rifles that accuracy comes before reliability was probably a stretch, but the marines took an accurate rifle and made it reliable (and more accurate) with all the extensive modifications with the 700. Of course no one wants to take an unreliable rifle to the field, especially in combat, just because it is accurate. If you can’t fire you can’t hit your target.
I said that the rifles used for DG have more in common with the rifles used in the Great War. I meant that the conditions the rifle will encounter are more similar. A GI in a foxhole will need 100% reliability, under stress, and in muddy/dusty conditions, more so than the accuracy required from a sniper rifle.
You are correct that both systems have advantages and disadvantages. For long range fire where speed is not critical. The ability to top load and snap over the rim is advantageous. Also the spring loaded ejectors will politely drop the brass in neat pile no matter how hard the bolt is worked. In muddy dirty conditions where the bolt is worked hard and only fed from the magazine, the fixed blade ejector hold the advantage.
The push feed is simpler and cheaper, the CRF is more complex and trickery to make work. One must do his own research and decide for himself.
As to me not liking Remingtons. My Brother in laws bolt handle fell off. The extractors are known to be weak. I prefer bolt mounted safeties, the ejection and loading port is smaller, I prefer the recoil lug to be part of the action, I prefer flat bottomed actions, and I don’t care for cassette triggers. Being a push feed is honestly on the bottom of the list of things I dislike. All of those are personal preferences
The post 64 model 70 push feed has about everything I like in a rifle except for CRF and I consider them fine rifles.
I was in a hurry earlier and didn’t word things correctly. I hope you don’t think I was trying to be abrasive or rude.

having been in all those situations with push feed rifles of various flavors and a few non.

Your talking about something you clearly have no depth of experience in.
thats why I am giving you a hard time. Because what your saying is very clearly influenced by modern media as to what you imagine that looking like. wars war. hunting is hunting.

how on the one hand are you saying hunting with a rigby BG wich is an amazing rifle. for a elephant cape buffalo ect. where you go out for a long somewhat arduous stroll. To a real war. like ww1 2 korea or ukraine.
but then turning around and saying "sniper" rifles are somehow not up to handle the same task? that they were literally designed to deal with.

and I agree with alot of the remington issues I wouldnt buy one made in the last 20 years. 1993 got sold to a conglomerate

2007 cerberus capital bought it and it went really down hill
2019 bankrup and sold
new remington company that isnt. now making remingtons and those are complete trash

but in particular were talking push feed vs crf as being a good choice or not. and id take my bdl 3006 against anything might not be the best choice but id do it if its all i had and be confident in it.

but both forms from whatever brands are reliable. tradition would state you need a rigby on a mauser action. and being a man of tradition i agree for a safari its the appropriate choice. but the other functionally would work as well.

 

[farmer_john]

One point about sniper rifles I would like to point out. They require extensive or very good and regular maintenance to be reliable.

No more than any other rifle. even aks get cleaned same manner and way contrary to popular belief.

Sniper rifles have very fine tolerances so to aid accuracy. Fine tolerances are the enemy of reliability in the elements as they jam up easily.

a bolt guns a bolt gun. and no they dont.

Now I doubt, but do not know for sure, that any snipper would treat their rifle the same way infantry when moving through, dust, mud, slurry etc.

all snipers are infantry not all infantry are snipers.
and yes they do. every one tries to not get their shit dirty
1 more to clean
2 because all dirty guns can and do jam even aks. and that is a real pain in the ass esp when people are trying to kill you.

like why do folks who clearly not military and are not snipers somehow talk like subject matter experts on how the infantry and snipers go about the daily in a war? very very very few us soldiers in the last 26 years per capita have done anything really spicy.

Im not trying to be rude. The ignorant comments are a bit thick when it comes to what goes on in a war. its nothing like hunting any game species. unless walking in a dusty environment with a rifle for a few hours is the only comparison

 

[Rule 303]

No more than any other rifle. even aks get cleaned same manner and way contrary to popular belief.

a bolt guns a bolt gun. and no they dont.

all snipers are infantry not all infantry are snipers.
and yes they do. every one tries to not get their shit dirty
1 more to clean
2 because all dirty guns can and do jam even aks. and that is a real pain in the ass esp when people are trying to kill you.

like why do folks who clearly not military and are not snipers somehow talk like subject matter experts on how the infantry and snipers go about the daily in a war? very very very few us soldiers in the last 26 years per capita have done anything really spicy.

Im not trying to be rude. The ignorant comments are a bit thick when it comes to what goes on in a war. its nothing like hunting any game species. unless walking in a dusty environment with a rifle for a few hours is the only comparison

Yes and no. I am ex infantry. A snipers rifle has finer tolerances than standard bolt/semi auto rifle. They need this to have the repeatable accuracy they have. Finer tolerances means they gum up sooner. No maybes about it, period. Don't believe me try running an SR25 against a standard AR10.

Nowhere did I say other rifles are not cleaned, especially military ones that are cleaned every time you get a chance, least ways that's how we did things.

Bolt actions are not all equal, a SMLE, Mosin Nagant will take more gunk to stop it than an 03 Springfield or M98 or any modern bolt action. My Rem 700 starts to gum up with dust before my Rugger M77 and both before SMLE. On this point you appear to be ignorant.

Yes infantry try to keep their weapons clean but there are times they end up with mud, or dust, or sleet, grass etc on them. You think blokes in WW1 in trenches were not for ever cleaning mud of their weapons in winter, dust and dirt in summer, or sand if in the desert. I had a couple of Great Uncles and a Grandfather you could talk to about that.

You appear to make assumption's i.e., I was not ex mil and yes Infantry. Yes I could have spelt all this out in my post but was assuming people would understand what I was saying, my fault.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

I didn’t think I needed to be ex military to know that the battle rifles used in the world wars were built with a different set of requirements and features than modern sniper rifles. Which started out as target, and hunting rifles.
My mistake

 

[farmer_john]

Yes and no. I am ex infantry. A snipers rifle has finer tolerances than standard bolt/semi auto rifle. They need this to have the repeatable accuracy they have. Finer tolerances means they gum up sooner. No maybes about it, period. Don't believe me try running an SR25 against a standard AR10.

Nowhere did I say other rifles are not cleaned, especially military ones that are cleaned every time you get a chance, least ways that's how we did things.

Bolt actions are not all equal, a SMLE, Mosin Nagant will take more gunk to stop it than an 03 Springfield or M98 or any modern bolt action. My Rem 700 starts to gum up with dust before my Rugger M77 and both before SMLE. On this point you appear to be ignorant.

Yes infantry try to keep their weapons clean but there are times they end up with mud, or dust, or sleet, grass etc on them. You think blokes in WW1 in trenches were not for ever cleaning mud of their weapons in winter, dust and dirt in summer, or sand if in the desert. I had a couple of Great Uncles and a Grandfather you could talk to about that.

You appear to make assumption's i.e., I was not ex mil and yes Infantry. Yes I could have spelt all this out in my post but was assuming people would understand what I was saying, my fault.

We would have had alot more in common than you would think

And ive used over the years as have my students about every rifle you have listed and then some sniping.

Not all were ideal. But they got the job done. Mechanically tho was never the criticism.
There not as tempermental as folks make them out to be

 

[Schüler Jumbo]

Yes and no. I am ex infantry. A snipers rifle has finer tolerances than standard bolt/semi auto rifle. They need this to have the repeatable accuracy they have. Finer tolerances means they gum up sooner. No maybes about it, period. Don't believe me try running an SR25 against a standard AR10.

Nowhere did I say other rifles are not cleaned, especially military ones that are cleaned every time you get a chance, least ways that's how we did things.

Bolt actions are not all equal, a SMLE, Mosin Nagant will take more gunk to stop it than an 03 Springfield or M98 or any modern bolt action. My Rem 700 starts to gum up with dust before my Rugger M77 and both before SMLE. On this point you appear to be ignorant.

Yes infantry try to keep their weapons clean but there are times they end up with mud, or dust, or sleet, grass etc on them. You think blokes in WW1 in trenches were not for ever cleaning mud of their weapons in winter, dust and dirt in summer, or sand if in the desert. I had a couple of Great Uncles and a Grandfather you could talk to about that.

You appear to make assumption's i.e., I was not ex mil and yes Infantry. Yes I could have spelt all this out in my post but was assuming people would understand what I was saying, my fault.

FYI only: The correct term is “Former Infantry” not “ex infantry”. Ex Infantry implies dishonorable discharge.

 

[Gomer]

All this bickering debate is making me want to buy another Krag rifle; maybe a carbine this time. Wish I had never sold my Krag. Push feed.

Me too. Just bought another 700.

 

[M70375!]

I was a Remington man until I started hunting Africa . I have replaced 3 extractors over the years, you can fix that for about $200 by putting in a M16 extractor, but then you still have the dangerous untrustworthy Remington safety to deal with., as you will likely be carrying with one in the pipe at times, I have now swicthed over to the new model 70s, they shoot as good as a new Remington or better, and are flawless in Desing and function, I would ditch it and get a model 70. For what you get they are very reasonably priced. When you take the stocks off those 2 rifles, you can quickly see how much better the model 70 is built. My 2 cents worth.